Ridiculing Religion or Religion of Ridicule

Mr. Mooquin’s critique is absolutely biased, shallow and most of his criticism is unfounded. I found this movie very funny and to the point. This kind of movie was much needed to accelerate the retreat of Christian fundamentalism in USA. Bill Maher didn't bring any new theory in this movie. All he said was already known and much has been written on stupidities of organized religions for centuries. It the presentation by Mr. Maher that makes the diffence.

Actually both are right. Marx never developed any theory of Economic development. What he worked on was Historical Materialism and Dialectical Materialism. But he never referred to his work as historical or dialectical Materialism. His work acquired these names or was given these names later. Engels used at least one term but later in the Soviet union the whole thing became Dialectical Materialism.

"At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or – what is but a legal expression for the same thing – with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters."
Karl Marx wrote in Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

"No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, it will always be found that the tasks itself arises only when the material conditions of its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation. "

This concept is founded on Dialectical Materialism applied to history.

"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange."

In the modern economic terms his analysis of development or the dialects of nature was called Marxist theory of Economic Development and there are numerous references to that in many books including one book by Bertrand Russel.

So even though Marx never called it "Marxist theory of economic development," currently that is how it is known.

As I said, he never used Historical Materialism or Dialectical Materialism either but that is how socialists now like to refer to Marx work.

Mr. Masadi: You forgot what you wrote in #52 which led me to direct your attention to the fact that 622,000 websites, not to mention textbooks on the subject written when marxist idiotlogues were a superpower, refer to the Marxist theory of development:

"Ahmad sahib your statement "Marxist theory of development" told me that you know sh** about it. I don't have to read up on it I have peered inside the mind of Marx and I know how it thinks, you on the other hand base your BS on Fox News propaganda regarding Marxism, according to whom Obama is a Marxist who wrote your "Marxist theory of development"."

So, all you are doing is repeating this same nonsense in #206 when you write "textbooks are not words of God, and asking me to read a text book is no rebuttal. "

No, my learned friend, you are not the god of the MRI who can say "I have peered inside the mind of Marx". It doesnt matter what was inside the mind of Marx. What is important is what he wrote.

Last post.

Tahmed mian, textbooks are not words of God, and asking me to read a text book is no rebuttal. The entire google with its 622,000 references couldn't rescue you, how will a mere textbook?

Have a nice day and get an education,
TNI Masadi

in #204 last line, first para should be "Or read any textbook on economic development written in the soviet union in the 1917 through 1970's then come talk to me."

Masadi: Like I said, Irma Adelman;s widely used textbook back in the 1960's on the various theories of economic development (which includes a separate chapter on the marxist theory of economic development), then come talk to me. Or read any textbook on economic development then come talk to me.

In fact, I already gave you a hint earlier on on how the marxist predictions of the collapse of capitalism were based on the marxist theory of economic development. So stop your pompous claims of "what I dont know isnt knowledge".

tahmed writes "You Failed the test, Mr. Masadi. I didnt ask you describe the mode of production to me (which anyone can look up).

The correct answer: The Mode of Production is central to the Marxist theory of economic development (in the same way that innovations are central to the Schumpeterian theory of economic development)."


In case you are reading challenged, the first part of my answer clearly elaborated that since there is no such thing as a "Marxist theory of development"- any attempt to link Marx's name to such a theory is spurious, therefore there can be no mode of production linked to such a "theory". On the other hand what the mode of production is I explained according to what marx had stated about it. So since you don't have a goddamned clue about it why don't you go grade kindergarten kids about your "secret knowledge" which you claimed everyone could look up on google with a million hits but now you differentiate between looking it up and looking up the mode of production. You are a classic case of the product of a Pakistani colonized education, who can't think worth a fart but makes big "earth shattering" pronouncements revealing his or her own ignorance. Many such people (one of them being Anil) are found on this site,


Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

#199. You Failed the test, Mr. Masadi. I didnt ask you describe the mode of production to me (which anyone can look up).

The correct answer: The Mode of Production is central to the Marxist theory of economic development (in the same way that innovations are central to the Schumpeterian theory of economic development). Read a textbook on economic development from the 1960's when Marxist economics to communists what what Mills is to you. Lookup some Soviet economics textbook (or Irma Adelman if you knowledge of russian is not part of your boundless circle of knowledge). Then come talk to me about Marxism.

Anil writes "Massaddi mian:

Please keep your foul language to yourself. Einstein rejected QM. I hope you understand rejected means. Here are his own words:"

I think HBS forgot to teach you english and what CONTENDED (a word in my post) meant. Hindlish cannot and does not substitute for english, get an education you fool...

Have a nice day

TNI Masadi

#199 was in response to tahmed's #198

A. there is no such thing as a Marxist theory of development so there would be no such thing as a mode or production, in a non existent theory.

However in Marx's discussion of substructure and superstructure, the mode of production determines the relationships of production, related to the economic base, which are then projected in the superstructure in the form of what kind of state institution, family, religion etc you're going to have, kept intact with an overarching ideology that makes sure that the underlying relationships determined by the mode of production are not disturbed.

Have a nice day and get an education you miserable idiot,

TNI Masadi

Masadi:

Q: Describe the significance of the Mode of Production in the Marxist Theory of Development (using 50 words or less).

Thanks.

hamidm2 and anil...
...nice video, only that old guy should have been little careful about his lingo....

the concept of god/worship started as to please forces of nature, which human society can not control- water (Varun), air ( Vayu), sun (Surya), moon (Chandra)... you will find such similarity in Nordic gods (Thor, Nohr, Odin...) or Greek Gods and Goddesses....When society advanced little more, man created god of Wealth (Lakshmi), God of Education, God of Culture... and some pet animals and spheudo creatures....all these were very harmless and inspired artistes to create beautiful painting, poetry,architecture....

The problem started in middle east (mediaval period or dark age) when Abrahmic FAITH got prominance and Mo made it lethal weapon to commit gang crime.....similarly, semi-buddhist Christian teaching become barbaric at the hand of Romans....so these gang wars like Crusade and Jihad and bloodshed etc....christians advanced in science and technology.they use media and other tools...the concept of islam is frozen in 7th century arabia; so they still use violence/barbarism to score points.....
...theism was not at all dirty stuff in ancient age...most of the ancient architectures,paintings and poetry were dedicated to God... at least we should be thankful to God for those beautiful creations....

Below are the definitions:

"....We are constantly seeking explanations for what we observe is happening. As we seek to understand, we develops an explanation, hypothesis.

....we have formalized this process into what is termed the Scientific Method. The scientific method is a sequences of steps designed to lead to the development of theories, tested explanations, of the phenomenon that we have observed around us...."

Now "tested explanations" and "observable" point only to proving, and not disproving. There are examples after examples of what is Scientific Method.

Can you share the proof positive of God's existence (all of them, I presume are from Scientific methods)?

Massaddi mian:

Please keep your foul language to yourself. Einstein rejected QM. I hope you understand rejected means. Here are his own words:

"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one. (Albert Einstein to Max Born, Sept 1944, 'The Born-Einstein Letters')"

Now I will others decide here, whose BS it was Einstein's or yours.

BTW, do you understand corollaries, proofs?

Anil mian you fool, you quoted my correct statement in order to rebut it....

You remain a certified idiot like tahmed,

Have a nice day,
TNI Masadi

Masadi mia: I am glad that you corrected yourself. Now which scientific method will you use to "disprove"?

#184 Posted by quin on November 2
quin,
the following was written in bold (there was a bit more)..

this is what i said?
[[
So the "true value of religion" is already known to you without knowing the context of that true value. It is like you don't know what the thing is but you know its true value??
]]

Do you not understand what I am saying here?.....

I have said it so many times, in much longer statements.... a truth is always told with its context and it can not contradict any other truth.... further it is not like you will keep context blurred and will still be able to state truth clearly....

Mr. Masadi: Have you gone into hiding in your khood??

Mr. Masadi: Perhaps you should apply to President Zardari for a job as Vice President of Pakistan. This way he will get Dan Quayle AND Sarah Palin at the same time (for reasons explained in #189 and #186).

#187 masadi: You say there no Marxist theory of economic development, and Dan Quayle used to potato has an "e" at the end.

This proves that you are the Dan Quayle of Pakistan. In addition to being the Sarah Palin of Pakistan.

Anil writes "What would you call above? Punctured ego. Einstein's position was completely OPPOSITE to what you write.."

You fool do you understand the meaning of "contended", i.e. didn't agree with. He could not believe the probabilistic (dice) nature of quantum mechanics as the true nature of the universe in his disagreement with that, and he was wrong. God does indeed play dice which leaves a lot of room for active intervention and free will, you certified idiot.

Have a nice day,
TNI Masadi

Like Anil on his science proves and does not disprove BS, tahmed has been proven a similar ignoramus regarding Marx. There is no such thing as "Marxist theory of development", the google search he touted picked up "Marxist theory" but never once with "development in the same line as "Marxist theory of development" , always on another line as part of another thought! And this fool presents that as "proof". He does not know the abcs of Marx's dialectic in which there is no such thing as a "theory of development".

Have a nice day and keep it real,

TNI Masadi

Masadi #79 Your covering up your ignorance of Marxist theory with your usual rants make you ....drum roll...the Sarah Palin of Pakistan!!

Congratulations on your great achievement.

Re: # 182 Mr. Quin ... I second you and only I am telling from almost year. But people redicule me. I was first to recognize even when he was angry person and urged him to moderate and to my surprise and horror of his ditractors he has moderated and controlled. Any way thanks for seconding me.Will you admit to my fore site ?
Thanks

Re: # 175 pinku,
Would you mind telling us what do you mean by 'context' and what do you mean by 'truth'.

You and me may be talking two different things here.

Nothing, repeat nothing, can be understood without context. That is how even words get their meaning in a language. Without a referential frame there is no language and there is no 'truth' either. Shakespearean 'Nothing comes out of nothing' in this context can be paraphrased to understand the above. And even in physics, things cannot be seen moving without a referential frame. Science, mathematics, logic, philosophy all build their structures on axiomatic referential frames.

For now ... won't be online for sometime ... all the best

Re: # 179

"...That was Einstein's BS regarding science being not definite but probabilistic, something he contended..."

What would you call above? Punctured ego. Einstein's position was completely OPPOSITE to what you write. He insisted Science being definite, and not probabilistic as QM is based.

This is how you are convinced scientific methods "disprove".

Lage raho, Masadi mian.

In appreciation of masadi,
First time I have seen masadi in action and read his interacts closely. I am impressed by breadth of his knowledge and perceptivity of his vision. I may not agree with everything he says but wide spectrum of his views is most interesting and transcends the usual limits of bookish knowledge. In other words, rather his knowledge of wide ranging material does not limit his originality as is wont with some. Keep it up masadi.

SC writes "If we allow such barbarity and stupidity to be practiced in the name of our religion, we should be prepared to be laughed at..."

I don't think it is a laughing matter, it is a serious matter that should be dealt with. Laughing at US barbarism in Iraq a much higher level barbarism in the name of democracy and freedom can similarly be "laughed" at but will that laughing do anything to uncover the underlying causes towards seeking a solution. Bill Maher is an a-hole ignoramus who thinks he is smart but is a downright dimwit. He would still laugh at religion even if all these things you talk about didn't exist because he is himself a fundamentalist...

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

gotta go, for Anil who still wants to argue, after having been proven an ignoramus....go climb a goddamned pole...

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

That was Einstein's BS regarding science being not definite but probabilistic, something he contended...

Btw there is a lot of +ve proof for God. I on the other hand never say that since you cannot disprove God you have to accept him, that is Anil's straw man again. I say through those arguments that since the alternatives are disproven therefore God, which is the method of falsification of course. The only alternative that works, that of the multiverse is so absurd given the scientific method that anything even the most absurd human tale is more believable scientifically than it because it takes things to the infinity where anything goes....

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

Anil writes "God does not play dice"

That was Einstein's BS regarding science being not definite but probabilistic. It is an undisputed fact that science progresses through falsification but this ignoramus will cling to falsehood doing all kinds of monkey tricks to prove himself right but anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of science will laugh himself crazy reading his BS. Rabia, you can reason with a tree but you can't reason with blind dimwits like Anil....

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

Okhla writes "Masadi was terminated from some US university last year. The following facts have been presented on many occasions:"

I was not terminated from anywhere and certainly not "last year". I returned to Pakistan Jan 2007 .

Then he writes "Fact : Masadi was kicked out of US."
BS I left of my own accord and have been back twice since then. Nobody "kicked out" has such liberty.

"Fact: Masadi begged for an extension but was denied on merit."

More BS. This person is so pathetic that when stumped by my arguments he invents tales as ad hominem. I taught part time in the US not based on any contract on a "need" basis. No extension is involved in such deals

"Fact: Masadi was rejected by all mainline publishers."
I just tried a couple, not ALL. Another lie, and corporate publishers usually "reject" people of impeccable credentials whose work then can either not make money off of or whose work goes against the structure of capitalism.


"Fact: Lulu.com agreed to publish Masadi papers, for a fee."

Lulu doesn't "agree" to publish anyone and they don't charge a fee.

"Fact: All Pakistan colleges/schools refused to hire Masadi."

I worked at at least 3 well know universities in pakistan.

"Fact: Chowk rejected six(or eight?) of Masadi articles."

Chowk rejected around a dozen articles of mine because of my viewpoints that don't sit well with Gill the plumber. Only Okhla takes chowk editors as the be all and end all literary standards

"Fact: Masadi believes the rest of the world consists of "dimwits" who are peons of the West."

People like okhla certainly do qualify for the above, the "rest" of the world is a victim of the elite, the few who serve them are the dimwits and peons, Okhla has a prominent position among them.

"Fact: Mad mullahs like Masadi shall soon be eliminated."

Okhla is not immune from death either...

"Mian Masadi, the more you "change" the more you remain the same. But you don't fool any Chowkies..."

If by change you mean I should change my pov, go climb a pole till you reach a point of perfect fit, if you know what I mean......

Re: # 165

Alphanull:

"...That *one experimental result* sufficed to *disprove* the theory of Newtonian mechanics as it stood..."

The experimental result that you quote showed limits of Newtonian Physics and did not "disprove" Newton's laws.
I am not putting down experimental (empirical) work, in fact it is a necessary condition to "verify" theoretical physicists work. In fact scientific community remain skeptic about theoretical postulates until verified experimentally.

Another example is, that only recently, when a spacecraft left solar system that limits of Euclidian geometry showed up, because the calculated velocity and observed speeds of the spacecraft had discrepancy large enough to be ignored.

Likewise Newtonian Physics, Einstein's Theory and QM came into play, and now Euclidian Geometry's limits showed up too. Now theoretical physicists are saying QM is inadequate to study String Theory.

None of this means "disproved". Instead it means their limits are reached and "new" approaches are needed.

"Disproving" is a deduction, implication etc. Religionist wrongly approach is that "if God's existence is not disproved", then God exists. The fact is Scientific methods do not "disprove". This is Masadi's, however convenient but wrong, argument is when he is asking to be "disproved". He has demonstrated intellect, and not ignorance to understand it. Therefore, uses such arguments to confuse, and insists that scientific methods disprove to justify his arguments.

Religious beliefs are not as tolerant as Scientific methods. He knows it, and that is why he wants to claim that his arguments based on his religious beliefs are scientific. He is not alone, after all there are many who chased the similar dreams and came up with Christian Science too. He is trying to probably "invent" Islamic science.

You are correct, if you meant that Einstein's quote did not make him a hindrance in the progress of QM. After all Einstein's constant that he rejected from his own equations, is now being brought back and explained using QM. Einstein's rejected constant may now win someone a Nobel Prize.

#173 Posted by quin on
[[
This is a challenge for all those who want to bring the true value of religious thought to fore and make it accessible for the modern mind. No doubt, without proper ‘contextualizing’ no meaningful work about religion is possible.
]]

This is the one bad thing that religion gave to us. The responsibility to keep giving contexts to stupid things??? So God said things without "thinking" properly and now you will have to add "context" to make "tribal" look "modern". And how much of context will it be????


So the "true value of religion" is already known to you without knowing the context of that true value. It is like you don't know what the thing is but you know its true value??

Let me be a bit rude and idiotic to suggest you this... A truth is truth when it is said with all of its context otherwise it doesn't even make sense,forget about being true or not.

Re #72 Posted by quin on


[[
#2. pinku: please substantiate your claim;

“seems like an apology on behalf of all religion�
]]

In general your article describes movie as "for athiest and against religion", the movie was "for those who do not believe in religion and against religion". I was referring to the following para in your article. What you say, seems to suggest that movie hardly had any comedy or sarcasm and instead of doubt it was rallying the cause of athiests in a distasteful way. First what is the cause of athiests? I do not know that athiests use the same kind of large organized structures, lies as religions use? If you think that cause of athiests is to make religions look bad when they are not, then you should give examples where that was done (a lie about religion). "snake" and all those things are part of those religions? Otherwise why it is distasteful if the taste of movie is to show bad taste of religions?

I have still not seen that movie, but in his intevrview with Larry King he says that he is not Athiest, he simply do not know who God is what he is. So why people of religion force words into mouths of those who say religions are bad, why do you call him athiest? He doesn't say that God doesn't exist, he doesn't say he is an athiest, he says he doesn't know and of course if God exists he is not God of those religions?

There is nothing in culture that religion gives and is not replacebale with something better. It is very difficult to say what is "good" in religion that you can not have without religions, but it is easy to say what is bad in them, that we can avoid.

Paragraph from your article-
[[
Yet, watching the movie, one neither gets the comedy nor the satire, nor a simple message of doubt. One leaves the theatre with a strong sense that Maher is rallying the atheists in a battle cry. It may be good to challenge what is ridiculous in religion. Only by a thorough and unrelenting threshing can all chaff be separated from traditional religious thinking. On the other hand, the trickery he and his team use for this venture renders Religulous ineffective and a distasteful production. By pronouncing war against religion, Maher may do a greater disservice to the cause of atheism. Atheism becomes its own antithesis, the worst form of which is no less than religious fundamentalism. In a chart near the beginning of the movie Maher shows that sixteen percent of the US population are atheist—more than other groups such as gay and lesbians, Muslims, Jews, and Blacks. Clearly the atheist voice must be heard.
]]

Re: # 78 sattar2
You have expressed some intricate ideas very brilliantly. I really enjoyed this post.
“The way religion is shoved in their faces perhaps has something to do with it.� is a point worth pondering.
This is a challenge for all those who want to bring the true value of religious thought to fore and make it accessible for the modern mind. No doubt, without proper ‘contextualizing’ no meaningful work about religion is possible.

“I see his views on religion mainly as humorous that implicitly, correctly, warn us of the dangers of taking it all too seriously and literally.�
No question about it – my slight discomfort – as also expressed earlier in my interact about Salim_Chuhan’s post, is the danger that it may become misleading and camouflage the real political, economic and social issues. I lean towards the position that after Communism’s demise, Islam has becoming scapegoat for hiding vested interests of big corporations. Ironically (and intentionally) fundamentalism was fed by money from those vested interests in the first place. Though a different topic, but I cannot help to suspect that as these documentaries are becoming a new tool in propaganda war for the ‘heart and mind’ of people, and obviously by corollary, there may be an agenda involved in that.
I have no proof for that – and neither one can ‘disprove’ this … LOL

Re: # 95 Hyde
Well said

Re: # 96 Goldfinger,
Wow, a refreshing analogy that gives a pause for thought, “There is a possibility that the body and consciousness could be separate, like a computer and internet …)

Re: # 125 hamidm2
Good expression of athiestulous gobbledegook. And a good example of what Hyde in post # 95 refers when it says about how athiests think, “…those who believe are irrational (and probably need to be bombed back to rationality,…)

Re: # 139 teshah
In the movie, three religions are chosen for the ridicule. Other big religions of Indian sub-continent, North America, and Far East are not part of it. So the ridicule is specific – not general.
You made a good point – how it can be commented upon if one has not seen the movie. But it is not uncommon at Chowk to see people making over-sweeping comments about the articles they have not read. So here ya go.
Anyway, I think the movie should be available soon on the internet and video shops as it is already no more playing in as many theatres as it was at its debut.

Re: # 156 Ravi_Kopra,
Yes, when I joined Chowk I did not know that the log-in name I will choose will forever become my interact / iLog identity. If I knew then what I know now, I would have chosen a log-in as Mutaal_Mooquin.
Thank you for your interest.

Re: # 162 Salim_Chauhan
Thanks for your interest. I do agree with what you are saying about necessity of humour, especially about things which are being taken too seriously. Such humour allows us to see things in a lighter vein and thus allows us to be more enlightened about it. In my article, I have in fact commended that aspect. I have for example said,

“He [Bill Maher] must be commended for his brutally honest and plain questioning along with the funny commentaries that expose the ridiculousness of some views.�

Point of my article was to express my discomfort about some aspects of producers’ artisitc integrity or lack of it as substantiated also by journalistic reports cited in the article (The Los Angles Time, the Business Week).

The other point I wanted to bring was movie’s approach towards extremism. Your comment “… there is merit in laughing at the extreme view of ALL extremists.� is valid, however, that is not the case in the movie. The extremism (as generally understood by this terms) of Christians and Jewish extremists is hardly touched upon. Their perversion is shown to be benign, for example, contraptions to avoid Sabbath commandments or Christian pastor claiming to be reincarnated God Jesus etc. Only one small clip about Bush’s foreign policy comment made his way into the movie to bring extremist aspect of anyone other than Islam. When I say this I get accused of typical Islam apologists or similar. That is not true. The truth can be seen by anyone who watches the movie and analyze its content. I believe Richard Dawkins did much better job of exposing all extremists equally and I had no problems with that. Rather, I brought his “The God Delusion� to the attention of Chowk readers precisely for the reason that it exposes fairly the religious extremism of dominant faiths, though I do not agree with all his views.

Your comment about the perverted thinking and practices that must be exposed for what they are is well stated, “If we allow such barbarity and stupidity to be practiced in the name of OUR religion, we should be prepared to be laughed at.� I just capitalized ‘our’ in this quote as I hear the angst in it.

Anil #163

{{Einstein is famously quoted for saying "God does not play dice". He said so because he could not prove that Quantum Mechanics was wrong. A "disproof" that he knew he could never come up, hence this famous quote from him.}}

Anil ji, you are making confusion worse confounded by bringing that remark of Einstein's into the picture. Whether or not Einstein though he personally could prove QM wrong, it can in principle be proved wrong by a single unexplainable discrepant experimental observation. One can argue about interpretations of QM - and Einstein was deeply disturbed by a probabilistic interpretation of physical law - but that is a separate issue from the question whether the theoretical predictions of the QM agree with experiment.

And as far as Einstein was concerned, he knew very well that his own theories could be proved wrong by a single discrepancy. There is an anecodote about a pamphlet attacking his science and him personally, entitled "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein". His reported retort was "If I were wrong, one would have been enough". The situation may not be an exact parallel for experimental falsification but it does I think indicate what Einstein's attitude to falsification would have been.

Anil #91

{{Scientific methods only prove and not disprove.}}

and #131, #134, #151, #155

Anil ji, I regret to have to inform you that you are completely befuddled.

A theory about *empirically observable phenomena* is considered 'scientific' to the extent that it is falsifiable, i.e. to the extent that it makes precise predictions that can be tested experimentally and potentially contradicted.

Every experiment whose results agree with the predictions of a specific theory adds empirical validation to that theory. However *a single experiment* whose results show an unexplainable irresolvable discrepancy with the predictions of a theory *disproves* that *particular version* or variant of the theory for all time to come.

Thus a specific theory about empirical phenomena (such as most of physics, for example) can *always be disproved*. It can *never be proved*, i.e. placed beyond the reach of experimental falsification - though it can be provisionally supported by a large number of corroborating experimental observations. This is the opposite of what
you have been claiming.

For a concrete example, Newtonian mechanics was apparently corroborated by two centuries worth of astronomical observations of the planets - except, alas, for the discrepancy in the rate of precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury around the sun, which was too large and too thoroughly verified to be explainable as
due to experimental error. That *one experimental result* sufficed to *disprove* the theory of Newtonian mechanics as it stood (and General Relativity subsequently predicted a rate that turned out to be in better accord with observations).

BTW, none of this is particularly esoteric - it is common knowledge among working scientists and all those with an interest in epistemology or philosophy of science. This viewpoint was developed in detail by Karl R. Popper in 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery'.

Re: # 163

Rabia:

Oops. I was trying to be extra careful and did spell checker, but left out the following closing paragraph.

"Often religious and other emotional believers intentionally or unintentionally use "disprove" argument to persuade that, for example, if God's existence cannot be "disproven" therefore it exists, as Masadi Sahib does. He goes even wilder with his claims to interpret many scientific findings to claim they support his argument."

Re: # 160

Rabia:

Einstein is famously quoted for saying "God does not play dice". He said so because he could not prove that Quantum Mechanics was wrong. A "disproof" that he knew he could never come up, hence this famous quote from him. The corollary to it survived and became a foundation of further research.

The portion you quote is what points to corollaries and continued probity in Scientific methods. Even if a proof is one, there can be many corollaries. However, corollaries are through implication, deduction etc. and hence proof negative is only accepted within certain constraints (my example of negative result of testing for virus). People who claim results based on corollaries never say for certainty that something is absent or something is disproven.

Doctors and most statisticians always qualify such claims of disproof. They never qualify if they have found a proof positive.

It is in this context the part you quoted is applicable. The investigators who found the proof positive must report "verifiable" method, and consider "challenges". Therefore, they consider the challenges (falsification) also. Masadi sahib on the other hand uses foul language, quite aking to Einstein's "God does not play dice".

The fact remains that scientific methods never "disprove". "Disproven" is corollary (opposite) implication or deduction) of the "proof". This article also said how individual's bias can influence (Einstein's bias as shown in his statement).

{"The climax is Bin Laden’s statement that ‘it is a must for Al Quaida to obtain the nuclear bomb.’ This contrasts dismally with the mere second lasting clip of Bush that lacks emphasis on how the Christian fundamentalism of the Bush presidency has fed the religious fundamentalism of Bin Laden"}

Dear Mutaal,
Making fun of the more serious aspects of life is the essence of good humor. There is no reason to spare religion as long as we are being sincere, fair, unbigoted, and logical. There is no point in insulting the holy symbols of various faiths, but there is merit in laughing at the exteme views of ALL extremists.

Bill Maher, whether he is joking about Catholics, Evangelists, Jews, or Muslims is genuinely funny. His mockery of Muslims, especially the part about burkas, beards, violence, and stoning are all fair game. If we allow such barbarity and stupidity to be practiced in the name of our religion, we should be prepared to be laughed at.

Re: # 127 Masadi:The taken for granted world isn't "enough proof". Surely greater proof exists to prove that God(as compared to bekham) is real

Ha ha! Yes, after all I've seen God on TV every night for the past 6 years playing in the premiership.

Sigh!

Seriously, Masadi, list three signs, scientific signs, mind you, (seizures don't count) of God's existence.

And always remember the theory of replication of a scientific experiment.

Best of luck.

Cheers,
Shoaib

$155
anil, you are confusing mathemetical proofs with the scientific method. Look, here's the important part from the wiki page about the scientific method that you posted:

4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4. Galileo (1638) also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences. One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so forth.

Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[7] (This is what Einstein meant when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Re: # 157 Khala jan 99,

Interesting comments there about Mr. Asadi.

"Fact : Masadi was kicked out of US."
For committing what crime against insanity, if I may ask?

"Fact: Masadi begged for an extension but was denied on merit."
Why was he denied; state one more fact please!

"Fact: Masadi was rejected by all mainline publishers."
This is called 'killing a book'; guess who runs the print and elctronic media there?

"Fact: Lulu.com agreed to publish Masadi papers, for a fee."
Is paying to get published a crime as well?

"Fact: All Pakistan colleges/schools refused to hire Masadi."
Because the donation-seeking elitist institutions received a signal from the mothership anchored across Atlantic?

"Fact: Chowk rejected six(or eight?) of Masadi articles."
He is not alone in being ignored or banned. ChowQ does what it does because it is not an angelic site!

"Fact: Masadi believes the rest of the world consists of "dimwits" who are peons of the West."
Once the stooges would admit who they really are, Asadi sahib would stop the name-calling.

"Fact: Mad mullahs like Masadi shall soon be eliminated."
Are you a hired assasin Khala jan 99?

Any more facts??

Re: # 157
Khala jan 99,

Interesting comments there about Mr. Asadi.

"Fact : Masadi was kicked out of US."
For what crime against insanity, if I may ask?

"Fact: Masadi begged for an extension but was denied on merit."
Why was he denied; state one more fact please!

"Fact: Masadi was rejected by all mainline publishers."
This is called 'killing a book'; guess who runs the print and elctronic media there?

"Fact: Lulu.com agreed to publish Masadi papers, for a fee."
Is paying to get published a crime as well?

"Fact: All Pakistan colleges/schools refused to hire Masadi."
Because the donation-seeking elitist institutions received a signal from the mothership anchored across Atlantic?

"Fact: Chowk rejected six(or eight?) of Masadi articles."
He is not alone in being ignored or banned. ChowQ does what it does because it has an agenda. It is not an angelic site!

"Fact: Masadi believes the rest of the world consists of "dimwits" who are peons of the West."
Once the stooges would admit who they really are, Asadi sahib would stop his name-calling.

"Fact: Mad mullahs like Masadi shall soon be eliminated."
Are you a hired assasin Khala jan 99?

Any more facts??

Masadi has not changed at all. He continues to remain the same "widely respected, deeply intellectual piece of sheer brilliance."

Masadi was terminated from some US university last year. The following facts have been presented on many occasions:

Fact : Masadi was kicked out of US.
Fact: Masadi begged for an extension but was denied on merit.
Fact: Masadi was rejected by all mainline publishers.
Fact: Lulu.com agreed to publish Masadi papers, for a fee.
Fact: All Pakistan colleges/schools refused to hire Masadi.
Fact: Chowk rejected six(or eight?) of Masadi articles.
Fact: Masadi believes the rest of the world consists of "dimwits" who are peons of the West.

Fact: Mad mullahs like Masadi shall soon be eliminated.

Mian Masadi, the more you "change" the more you remain the same. But you don't fool any Chowkies...

Mutaal Mooquin saab,

do you go by quin at iLogs?

Masadi sahib:

A lesson for you:

Below is a link that explains Scientific Methods, including the related logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Logic.2C_mathematics.2C_metho dology

You will find that no where “disproving� is mentioned. It talks about “verification� (= proving).

Let me state one more time, scientific methods “prove� and do not “disprove�.

Disproving that you are confusing is corollary of what is proved. Corollary is reached through implication or association. Deductive (bottom up – facts to goal) and Inductive (top down – goals to facts) reasoning are others that also form the logic employed.

Take the simplest example, of single-bit of information in binary system (0’s and 1’s). A single-bit of information has only two degrees of freedom. Entire computing is based on it, I do not want to confuse you any further.

In this case you can “test� and prove the presence of 1 (or presence of 0), and through deduction and within two degrees of freedom (1 or 0) you deduce that this single bit of information is not 0 (or 1 in the alternative case).

This is the simplest example of proving that single-bit of information is a 1, and since there are 2 degrees of freedom and two possibilities 1 or 0. Therefore, when you combine these two “facts� or “truths� as they are called, you can deduce that this information is not 0, and thus you deduce / disprove that it is not 0.

The minute you add a one more degree of freedom and make it (1, 0, don’t know), you can longer “disprove� because you can deduce that it is 0. You must prove something more. This is Fuzzy Logic, an extension of binary logic.

Based on this foundation you can construct hypothesis and apply statistical or mathematical transformations to study. There are multivariate statistics and mathematical methods to deal with such situations. Bell Curve is hypothesized to be the normal distribution function in statistical methods from which all deviations etc. are studied.

Statistical methods that you may have used in your sociology have information / data with many more degrees of freedom. So does quantum mechanics which also relies on statistical methods, and uses probability distribution wave functions instead of just normal distribution function.
Statistical methods allow you to scale down and reduce degrees of freedom and sample to within a margin of error (within a probability) that you can verify.

Hopefully, you find this useful, and realize gaping holes in your foundation. Otherwise, I would say “Lage Raho, Masadi Sahib�, and do expect me to point wholes.

Religions stop us from answering questions - they, in fact, threaten us all the time when we answer questions -

just read Quran and see how many times it threatens both believers and dis-believers who would potentially dare to question the book.

"...the fact that you do not know abcs about scientific hypothesis testing...."

Lage Raho Masadi sahib.

Anil mian throwing some BS around does not absolve you of the fact that you do not know abcs about scientific hypothesis testing....

Have a nice day and keep up with this desified peon knowledge that the colonials bequethed on the sub continent and as a result of which we are in the position we are in, included in that are your dimwitted IT people who cant think worth sh**


Have a nice day and take it easy and don't waste my time you idiot...

TNI Masadi

Re: # 142

Masadi sahib:

"...disproving hypothesis to "indirectly" "prove" ..."

Truly, please read some on clausal logic and mathematical logis.

Your above statement itself is implication and deduction. You probably never learned about Axiomatic Proofs, which are foundation of scientific and mathematical methods. No wonder you performed poorly in quantitative skills.

Re: # 142

Masadi sahib's foul language is proof positive of the limits he has set to his knowledge. Beyond that for him knowledge does not exist, it is only belief system.

Scientific methodology comments I answered on the Hoodbhoy board.

Re: # 147

it is not my development that is stunted though! the facts speak a different language and the message is written clearly on the wall!! ... for all to see (but for those 'blinded' by "faith")

now if you have 'work to do', go and do it! ... take it easy though and have a very nice day

gotta go

akcheema writes "it is not the 'godless' that are 'inventing' the bs as you put it ... they actually "look for" the answers.."

BS, they become as dogmatic as the mullah and like him dishonestly shift criteria to prove their nonsense points. You have been warned, be purposeless/godless at your own peril of stunted development, which by your posts is quite obvious...

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

Re: # 145; Kaal

LOL!! very droll sir

SR # 135, actually, even at that stage problems are minimal, or at least humanly manageable.

The REAL problem (or if you are a believer, REAL power) arises when the abducted person delivers a specific "message for ALL of mankind" and proclaims the rejection of the "message" to have implications for one or more people, or to signal something inherently good or evil about these others.

At that point aliens, abductees, and listeners all become political agents, and little more.

Now, IF you went even further, and claimed your abduction to be the VERY LAST such astral sojourn, then you have perfected politics. All that remains is for you to enforce that claim as the law, by all means necessary - using rewards and using punishments.

Re: # 142

it is not the 'godless' that are 'inventing' the bs as you put it ... they actually "look for" the answers, admittedly don't always find them ... but keep looking nevertheless ... rather than satisfying themselves with incomprehensible bs such as you regularly produce here

and you go and have an even nicer day sir

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

akcheema writes ""who moved the prime-mover"??"

Please refrain from using BS language and arguments from the ignorance era, like Anil who even after having being stumped regarding science clings to his BS about science proving. Science progresses through falsification disproving hypothesis to "indirectly" "prove" the tested hypothesis but NEVER EVER directly. Anil take a hike if you don't understand something rather than cling to falsehood in this disgraceful manner.

Akcheema, the "moving" is required because of specific characteristics in the created universe that necessitate a creator, the beginning, the probable end, change, the 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. If such are NOT the attributes of a creator, it would require no "moving" similar to if the universe had the characteristics that atheists of the ignorance era imputed on it it might not have required "moving"- comprendey how you dishonest godless folk change criteria to go into absurd directions...much like Anil clinging to his BS.

Re: # 138; corrections

... inter-changeability

and

... than (not then)[last line]

apologies

Re: # 137

akcheema sahib:

"who moved the prime-mover"??

This is where the belief system of "believers" start and they create an absolute, much like newtonian absolute, instead of relativity. The point this belief system starts, rationality, reasoning and logic stops, and above all probity and questioning stop.

I wonder how can one ridicule religion, as such, as there cannot be a universal definition of the term … because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes.

As regards the film in question, it can be commented upon only if we can see it. But how can we do that? Is it available on line?

Re: # 137

... and if we can postulate the emergence of the "ever-existing prime mover" ex-nihilo, the universe itself becomes a much smaller matter to explain ... the theory of matter/energy interchangability becomes much more plausable (when it has more than enough verifiable evidence around) then the gobbledigook you lot try to satisfy yourselves with

Re: # 127; masadi
[[The taken for granted world isn't "enough proof". ]]

how is that 'proof' for anything?? so you cannot conceive the 'existence' of something without a 'prime-mover'?? .. then "who moved the prime-mover"??

Re: # 135


My trouble, however, begins when a remote trailer park resident gets abducted by a UFO from his out-house and returns to tell the tale to his wife half three hours later. Just because I believe in the existence of aliens does not follow that I must also believe that they came to the man in the Nevada trailer park, or for that matter, to a remote cave on a hill, overlooking a desert village somewhere in the remote tribal territory at the fringe of the Roman and Persian empires.


Let's go further.. Even giving a benefit of doubt that God indeed talked to some dude from Arabia in a secret cave through a messenger, why should God stop with that message.

He sent an earlier messenger 600 years back (let's say 0 A.D), it is statistically possible that he is still communicating with someone in earth. and that could be hamidm2. :-)

1) Does God exist?

2) Does s/he 'purposely' influence the universe?

3) Does s/he make direct communication with humans?

Most people get stuck on the first two points. I consider that futile. We should skip the first two points and start with the assumption that god does exist and influences the natural universe.

Okay, now comes the third question. Direct communication with humans. THAT is where I have trouble. The first two I concede.

It's just like with the aliens and their UFOs... Given the billions and billions of stars in our galaxy, and given that there are more billions of galaxies than there are stars in our own galaxy, common sense would argue that the existence of an "M class" planet with intelligent life on it is almost a stastical certainty. Carl Sagan argued that almost 30 years ago. I believe that intelligent alien exists, simply because it 'should' exist. No problem there either.

My trouble, however, begins when a remote trailer park resident gets abducted by a UFO from his out-house and returns to tell the tale to his wife half three hours later. Just because I believe in the existence of aliens does not follow that I must also believe that they came to the man in the Nevada trailer park, or for that matter, to a remote cave on a hill, overlooking a desert village somewhere in the remote tribal territory at the fringe of the Roman and Persian empires.

...SR

Masadi sahib:

Please keep foul words to yourself. I am not surprise at your refusal to learn. Repeat after me, Scientfic methods prove, and never disprove. Corollary is deduced, and since it is not proven, scientific probity continues.

later..............

anil: and don't try to cover up your ignorance by throwing 7th century to Mills nonsense, you 500 BC to Adam Smith moron

#129 Anil you've proved that HBS didn't teach you basic science when you claimed that science proves and does not disprove. Science progresses through disproving, you have proven yourself to be a total idiot...

Have a nice day
TNI Masadi

Khurram writes "This is because the big questions are not scientific questions and their answers are not scientific."

When the religious man defines "Big" to exclude science, his BIG is usually very small and within the realm of science...

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

Masadi sahib:

Did you honesty study to your degrees from the buckle of bible belt? Please do not say what you wrote here about disproving, and scientific methods.

Education is beyond you Masadi sahib, I would not say that get Education, please concentrate on Mills and 7th century. The logic was probably absent in those days.

Hyde writes "The hypothesis that gods exist does not clash with science. Since the hypothesis stipulates specifically that they exist in a supernatural universe which is outside the boundaries of the natural universe, that hypothesis cannot be tested by science, which deals only with the natural universe. So we cannot disprove the mere existence of gods.

However, religion doesn't stop there. It hypothesizes that those gods meddle capriciously and illogically with the behavior of the natural universe. Now this hypothesis contradicts not only science, but science's basic premise, because by definition external forces cannot affect a closed system."


A classic example of stumped athiest scientists trying to invent straw men. The BB theory claims that the universe originated out of nothing and claims to know nothing before that nothing because time itself originated then. However once it did originate, it was "directed" given the odds. Next, religions do not necessarily have to claim that God directs the daily happenings in the universe, this is another strawman, he can just let it unfold according to a program or writ, which is very easy to envision given a closed universe, especially in the compter age. Further the society, process analogy is very apt here. On the larger scale there is uniformity and clockwork but on a smaller micro stage there is consciousness and enough room for active intervention by God to produce that uniformity. Since those damn fools haven't yet found a total link between quantum and large scale processes, this contention is BS by whoever stated it. Just like social patterns on a large scale are uniform in a society but claiming that society is not made up on the permutations and combinations of humans interacting through processes (the quantum) is BS as well...

Have a nice day and get an education,
TNI Masadi

shoaib writes "Surely enough proof exists to prove that Beckham is real! "

The taken for granted world isn't "enough proof". Surely greater proof exists to prove that God is real

Anil writes "Why are you your own worst enemy? Scientific methods only prove and not disprove. No wonder you are so confused and not realize, because you keep yourself disproving to yourself."

That is where you are dead wrong. Science proves by disproving, that is why you never prove your hypothesis you always disprove the alternative hypothesis to establish yours.

Get an education,

TNI Masadi

Re: # 124

quin,

... "and sing praises to my Rabb, the Holy ONE, the ONE and the only ONE, The Loving Grace, forever Giving, ever Forgiving, Ar Rahman, Ar Raheem, Al Malikul Quddoos"

..... stop this nonsense, before they throw you in the lion's cage at the local zoo ...... the romans were obvioulsy on to something .........

Re: # 118 akcheema
What about Beethoven ... does 'ode to joy' serves any practical purpose then?

If it does for you, then other notes may serve others sir,
Enjoy the sunshine while it lasts - it is a lot here right now,

So enough of this lap-topping for today and now I will bask in the sun ..................

and sing praises to my Rabb, the Holy ONE, the ONE and the only ONE, The Loving Grace, forever Giving, ever Forgiving, Ar Rahman, Ar Raheem, Al Malikul Quddoos.
Blessed be you all.

Re: # 121 neembu
O the beauty, O the elegance, O the Grace
When heart tembles and time in suspension fades

Re: # 120 Khurram,
What a clear and crisp statement. Like the sunshine shining on my window ... like the brightness in the skies

Re: # 117

this is def worth pursuing-the music of recitation, that engagement b/n reciter, receiver and text is very powerful. hence, the beauty of the azaan.

"science cannot provide answers to big questions"

This is because the big questions are not scientific questions and their answers are not scientific.

The mistake is to treat them as scientific questions and treat religious answers as pseudo-scientific answers.

There is more to life than science!

Re: # 101 rabiawasti,
A very interesting and relevant question. My take:

Nation-state should be bashed as much, if not more, than religion. Keeping eyes close to one vice while focusing on the other is a vice in itself.

Having said that, both could be understood as a necessary step in the development of true humanity.

Re: # 117; quin
[[they are frozen notes of a musical composition of meaning wrapped in the diction of myth.]]

Thanks once again sir! .... so "good to enjoy" by a certain "elite" ... but of NO PRACTICAL USE whatsoever!! ... thought as much

Re: # 109 neembu
Most of the original religious texts were oral recitations - committed to writing later.Those cannot be understood properly unless they are seen in their original context.

And that's again where the problems lies. Both athiests and religious read them as books in the modern sense of a book. they are not books in that sense - they are frozen notes of a musical composition of meaning wrapped in the diction of myth.

HamidM, AkCheema, Shoaib

You guys have a big handicap.

The problem is 99% of the people NEED someone or something to depend on. There has to be someone who they can ask for all the things they want, but are not sure they can achieve by themself. It does not matter whether it is the elephant god or mo of mecca the son of god or even the ajmeribaba.

That is the reason religion is such a big business. The agents of God make a good living, whether they are the popes or mullahs or pandits.

Also don't forget religion is also the only entertainment for the poor.

Re: # 108, 86 hamidm2,
there are no black and white, either and or, true and false, yes and no in which every thing can be neatly placed. It is called Logiculous, an enterprise worth of a new movie.

But alas, only if one can transcend the divisions, only if one find meaning in a paradox ...

And neither life's biggest question is about after-death. Who fool told you that?

And fianlly, if you don't know what a Myth is - you may (may) benefit from reading Cambpell.

Re: # 113;quin
[[Gosh, what rubbish I am talking ... when it is all subjective ...]]

Thank You Sir!!

#111 akcheema
I feel same uplifting whether listening to Beethoven or Quran or Gita ... or even just listening to silence of the nothingness ... or looking at a 'blade of grass' ... (Whitman)

Gosh, what rubbish I am talking ... when it is all subjective ...

Re: # 110

samina bibi,

.... i hate it when old friends change their names .....

..... anyway, i have to reach waaay back in memory, but as far as i can recollect, sufi qawaals and credence clearwater have the same effect when you are high on hashish ...... both used to bring tears to my eyes

Re: # 107; quin

now you are just insulting Beethoven (and his intelligence!) ... I happen to be a fan ... especially Symphony No: 9 ... "an ode to joy" ... what has that got to do with what you are saying again???

oye hamid sahib,

let me dumb it down for you:

Sufi qawwal

Re: # 107

that's interesting. how might that be linked to the orality of several religious texts, i.e. text that is meant to recited, sung and heard?

Re: # 107

quin mian,

....i could not make any sense whatsoever out of your post - it was a bunch of gobbledegook and utter rubbish ...... you, in your desperate and pathetic attempt to justify your ridiculous belieefs are trying to obfuscate and confuse a simple balck and white issue ........ what is this nonsense about jacob wrestling with god ? ...... next thing we know, you will have our own mo of mecca wrestling with a winged creature in a dark cave .......

........ for joe's sake, give it up!

p.s. if you have any more basic questions that are bothering you, ask - i am sure i can answer them

I am replying to akcheema & shoib_danyal first, so my apologies for not following the discussion in orderly way.

Both of these posts # 97 & # 98 have assumed a corollary from my first sentence without looking closely at my second sentence.

I said science cannot provide answers to the big questions of life. The next I said, it is not the reason for validity of religious experience. What does this means dear friends, is that neither religion can provide answers to all the questions. I continued saying therefore pitting one against the other does not produce anything of real value.

I agree this is a bit simplified statement of what I really am trying to say. Sometime words defy what I really want to say.

Now saying that religion cannot provide the answers is also not the whole story. For some people it does. That is where the problem starts.
Therefore, your misunderstanding is understandable.

Enigma of life is never going to be solved by human mind completely - that is the nature of the beast. We humans are given a paradox to wrestle with all our life. That is same story played again and again, when Biblical Jacob wrestles with God - and is named Israel.

It is all about this wrestling. Some will try to wrestle with this 'OTHER' through logic, rationality and science; some through art, music and literature; some through mysticism, spirituality and intuition; and some through commerce, politics, and professions.
There are no absolute answers however. Nor everyone tries to consciously look for the answers. But everyone is wrestling deep down.

As far as religion is concerned, for me it is like listening to music. All the sacred texts at their core (when the core can be accessed) are musical pronouncements in the language of myth - mankind’s most powerful device of knowing the reality through intuition. When you hear to Beethoven does it provide you answers to your questions?
What does it do to you? When it does not do anything, probably your sense of appreciation is not in a heightened state which could help you tune to it.

For me the problem of religion (which makes all atheists feel the need for bashing it) is a problem of misunderstanding the myth by the followers of religion (and atheist alike). One accesses the spirit of religion when one can tune to the REALITY through the instrument of mythical language of the sacred texts. I use the word myth in the sense Joseph Campbell (and to some extent Carl Jung) have used it. It is not indicative of non-reality, but is a portal to reality.

#87 Posted by masadi on October 31, 2008 7:16:55 pm



Here is the "big" question: Prove to me how with a probability of near zero for "chance" to have created life let alone conscious life, how will you use science to disprove teleology


damn......you have no understanding of the theory of evolution....let along the basics of the scientific method...

put down mills and pick up miller....kenneth miller, that is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZKC2U-jWrw


Cornell West and Irshad Manji on Bill Maher

Good question, Rabia!

Also, I know some scientist and doctors who are also devout Muslims BUT are open minded in their world views. That is, they are able to seriously engage with scientific, social and religious systems.

But that's prolly too difficult for Maher and his apologists to understand....

Re: # 101; Rabia

one thing at a time girl!

for all those who are against organized religions because so many human lives have been lost because of them are you also against the concept of nation states? Or do you think the benefits provided by a modern state outweigh the costs to individuals.

whatever made you think religion CAN?? science provides the answers to legitimate questions and "works towards" finding the answers to the 'unknown'; what does religion give you? a satisfaction with fairytales as a substitute for knowledge? ... what a self-delusional state to be proud of eh!

LOL.. yeah, i wonder how the religious folks make these claim without any sense of humour.

Re: # 97; shoaib

LOL!! ... well said Douglas Adams!

Re: # 85; quin

(science can't provide ....)

whatever made you think religion CAN?? science provides the answers to legitimate questions and "works towards" finding the answers to the 'unknown'; what does religion give you? a satisfaction with fairytales as a substitute for knowledge? ... what a self-delusional state to be proud of eh!

I really had some hopes for you quin but looks like you have really sold your soul to the 'dark side' instead of rational thinking! .... now live with it sir ... unless ..

//Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life. And it is not the reasons for the validity of religious experience. These are two different areas of human endeavours and pitting one against the other has also not been able to make any real headway.
For now ...//

When you say “Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life� I am assuming that you are saying religion can.

We again come back to the genesis-of-religion thing, my man.

Would you rather swallow some made up sugar-coated answer or be brave enough to face the truth of a bitter answer or no answer at all?

Let take a rather common “big question�: the after life.
Would you rathert accept a version that tells you a lovely little tale about heaven with assorted paraphernelia like angels and the like—a version which has NO PROOF—or would you rather accept the disconcerting possibility that there is no afterlife?

I do of course do have the answer to at least one “big question� and the answer is 42.

Cheers,
Shoaib.

Re: # 86 "what happens after death? .... nothing - you simply cease to exist ....."

hamidm2, while I know that religions mostly are a bunch of fairy tales in which people continuously and uselessly are trying to explore higher meanings, yet these days scientists are seriously looking into the near death (or slightly after death) experiences that many people have undergone who have been clinically dead and have been revived. There is a possibility that the body and consciousness could be separate, like a computer and internet, or TV and its signals. If this is so then we must wonder as to where we get our consciousness from?

Atheists have a right to their non-belief, just as religious people have a right to their religious belief. Only misguided idiots try and feed others with their beliefs. I call it the blind leading the blind. That is why not judging others is liberating because by so doing one acknowledges his/her limitations. In so doing, one is inquisitive about life in general and acknowledges a desire to learn, learn and learn as an ongoing process of life. It is kind of a safety net that allows one's mistakes to be mistakes, because nothing is worse than an expert's mistake, it is called negligence.

Atheists, just like religious people should also get real with their lives and stop trying to spoon feed others with their drivel. Keep your beliefs to yourself, keep your sexuality to yourself, keep your promiscuity to yourself, keep your celibacy to yourself, keep your deity to yourself and keep your miseries to yourselves because the world just wants to get on with its life!

The Marxist Ideology doesn't seem to me to be about stripping away a belief system. This is the same sort of tosh that Dawkins peddles with his counter position of 'rationalism' and religion. Not only does he labor under a very rarified and normative notion of what rationality might be, but the implication of his (and Hitchen's etc) view is that those who believe are irrational (and probably need to be bombed back to rationality, or at least not be allowed to vote). The Marxist critique doesn't take this position at all -- it seeks to understand how religion manifests itself as a human response in certain historical conditions.

In practice and in this real world people have a right to believe what they want to believe. Theoretically, one might try to make a rationale analysis as to why these rights may or may not be. The only time people will stop having a right is when we clone people or implant them with the same brain. The problems with these rights arise when deluded people believe that their rights give them expert knowledge in that particular area which results in the relativism.

#84 quinn

I do actually agree with you, there.

But frustration does sometimes get the better of even the best of us, does it not?

Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of this tirade of "my religion is getting attacked the most". Whether in my country you'll have the Hindu right wing trying to paint secularism as something anti-Hindu or the author of this piece trying to paint Atheism as something which specially picks on Islam, its all quite irritating, really.

"However, in the last quarter when Religulous focuses on Islam, the theme of doom becomes disproportionately intense"
, is the line from the article wghich I find rather galling.

This persecuation complex cuts across almost all religions, unfotunately.

All I'll say to the author of the piece is to get a more mature perpective on life, that's all.

#82 @Masadi

//So if the media presents someone or something as "real" it becomes real? What an absurd way to define reality. So you say others have seen him, but how can they share their experience with you, even if the remote possibility exists that you have met those people, other than through "trust". Please explain this and as you start doing so you will realize just how "real" God is...//

Why is this getting so convoluted?

Surely enough proof exists to prove that Beckham is real! I don't have to depened on texts that are thousands of years old to prove it, now do I? :P

If you can give me the same level of proof that a God exists as the level of evidence that Beckam exists, trust me I'll have no qualms in believing it.

#87 Posted by masadi
“Here is the "big" question: Prove to me how with a probability of near zero for "chance" to have created life let alone conscious life, how will you use science to disprove teleology�

This is not really a big question. Has been around for a long time and I think William Paley asked it in the 19th century. William Paley, Natural Theology, 12th ed. London: J. Faulder, 1809.
Science is making progress. It has been answering questions so at some point in time it will answer the above question too. But in reality, it is unimportant to debate the whole thing and I am glad scientists are not wasting their precious time answering ridiculous questions.

You can read a debate here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86201
Here is a good post to start with.

You can try this link too. http://www.ecotao.com/holism/gem_kant.htm


“The fundamental premise upon which science is based is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.

The hypothesis that gods exist does not clash with science. Since the hypothesis stipulates specifically that they exist in a supernatural universe which is outside the boundaries of the natural universe, that hypothesis cannot be tested by science, which deals only with the natural universe. So we cannot disprove the mere existence of gods.

However, religion doesn't stop there. It hypothesizes that those gods meddle capriciously and illogically with the behavior of the natural universe. Now this hypothesis contradicts not only science, but science's basic premise, because by definition external forces cannot affect a closed system.

The complete set of beliefs about gods that characterize all religions attack and deny science, by claiming to have falsified its fundamental principle. After all, if a god can step off of his celestial front porch in a fit of pique and turn people into salt, raise sea level by several thousand feet in only forty days, or reanimate a corpse, then we can never rely on our empirically-based theories to predict the future behavior of the universe. Science would be virtually useless.

We cannot disprove the existence of gods. But we can test the hypothesis that the natural universe is a closed system, i.e., we can test the important part of the god thesis by establishing whether or not gods meddle with our universe. In fact we've been doing that for about 500 years, since the start of the Enlightenment. Every time the scientific method is used successfully to help us understand a natural condition or phenomenon. it's one more piece of evidence supporting that hypothesis.

Since no rigorous, respectable evidence has ever been found to cast doubt on the scientific method, the hypothesis that the natural universe is a closed system has achieved the status of a canonical theory. Of course we cannot be 100% certain that such a piece of evidence might not be discovered one day, we have not proved that the natural universe is a closed system. We have not proved that gods will never wake up from their slumber and start perturbing our universe. But after being tested by thousands of scientists every day for hundreds of years and never failing, we can say that the foundation of science is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

To assert that science is wrong, that the natural universe is not a closed system, that gods stand ready to part seas, rain locusts on us and resurrect dead heroes, becomes an extraordinary assertion. The Rule of Laplace now kicks in: Extraordinary assertions must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence before we are required to treat them with respect.

In other words, we've done our homework and we are not required to prove that gods don't tamper with the workings of our universe, whether or not they exist. We have all the evidence we need to assume that gods don't exist, i.e., a natural universe that has behaved as a closed system for centuries.

The burden of proof is on the theists to provide evidence that gods not only exist, but tamper with the workings of our universe. Until such evidence is presented, we have every right to treat religion with disrespect.

So go out and enjoy yourselves.�

Re: # 87

Masadi sahib:

"...how will you use science to disprove teleology

Why are you your own worst enemy? Scientific methods only prove and not disprove. No wonder you are so confused and not realize, because you keep yourself disproving to yourself.

and get a life before you inquire about its purpose...

another Asadi sahib masterpiece!

have a nice day and take it easy.....and get a life before you inquire about its purpose....

TNI Masadi

Hamid writes "what is the purpose of life?"

In #87, stated in Black and White: for God to discover himself and his creation through conscious beings and for man to discover God as a result. That is the prime purpose of the teleology behind creation....

The mullahs and religious folk throughout history have been mislead by their BS, but there it is in black and white, discovered through science and logic, and confirmed by the Quran.

Here is the "big" question: Prove to me how with a probability of near zero for "chance" to have created life let alone conscious life, how will you use science to disprove teleology

That is the BIGG question that no scientist worth the name has been able to answer other than by abandoning science~ now abandoning science doesn't have to be in the "God" direction, it can be a godless direction as well, one that says "everything happens" taken to the infinity~ only in absurdity can the godless find the straws they need to grab onto~ and don't rejoice you multiple god people, teleology and the structure of the universe reveals ONE, yes just ONE God.

Have a nice day and take it easy
TNI Masadi

Re: # 85

quinn mian,

"Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life" .... stop whining .... ask me a question and i will give you an answer! ..... what are the big questions ? ... let me see .... what happens after death? .... nothing - you simply cease to exist ..... what is the purpose of life? ... to enjoy a medium rare porterhouse steak and have wild sex with a nymphomaniac? ....... any other questions ?

Re: # 60 shoib_danyal,
Science cannot provide answer to big questions of life. And it is not the reasons for the validity of religious experience. These are two different areas of human endeavours and pitting one against the other has also not been able to make any real headway.
For now ...

Re: # 13 shoib_danyal, in this interact, you sir, are providing a good example of how to lift up a phrase (not even a sentence), quote it out of context, and give it a spin to your liking. A good exercise in producing comedy, but let's remember that good humour does not have to defile the truth for comic effect.

Re: # 11 bulleya
nice write up, good info and refreshing thoughts, partucularly the end is inspiring ;-)

shoaib writes "But isn't that a brilliant thing? At least Beckham is real. Not a figment of someones imagination."

So if the media presents someone or something as "real" it becomes real? What an absurd way to define reality. So you say others have seen him, but how can they share their experience with you, even if the remote possibility exists that you have met those people, other than through "trust". Please explain this and as you start doing so you will realize just how "real" God is...

Have a nice day and keep it real

TNI Masadi

by "they" in #80, I mean your uber capitalist friends among the elite

tahmed writes "stopped taking Marxists theories seriously..."

Oh but they are taking Marx's theories very seriously their whole manipulation game is constructed around those, as was the New Deal and the Civil Rights Act, they preempt based on his predictions in that way they are more avid Marxists than those that call for revolution...

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

tahmed writes "Google "Marxist theory of development" and you will get 622,000 websites referring to it"

What a sorry excuse. Since when did "googling" something become the standard of academia? And go ahead and google it, the first page will not show you any "Marxist theory of development" whatsoever, read at how google fetched it byt combining Marxist theory and "development" is reproduced in a separate line, not to mention "theory of economic development" is even more absurd in what you had stated. You are a total ignoramus where it concerns Marx, equations or not and I bet your "assets" you wont remember a single one of those now even though you claim to have read them. You can't discuss sh** about Marx with me Ahmad mian....

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

Quin,

There is validity to what you say … in that one needs to be careful in drawing conclusions and not paint with too wide a brush. At the same time, it is easy to see, at least partly, why Mahers of the world adopt extreme anti-religion views: The way religion is shoved in their faces perhaps has something to do with it.

If one believes in the garden, the snake, and talking bushes, arguably he has little business being the head of a state. If a state official suggests that foreign policy is the will of god, one may be justifiably annoyed with, or completely scared of him. Religious nutcases have a tendency of making such statements without contextualizing them. The best way to contextualize such statements, when one holds a public office, is to simply shut up. The born-agains are just as annoying as the ummah in this regard.

Comedy thrives on a heightened sense of suspected reality … and comedians play on this aspect of collective human psychology. I would give Mahers a little more slack. While he does make a lot of political sense, I see his views on religion mainly as humorous that implicitly, correctly, warn us of the dangers of taking it all too seriously and literally.

masadi's points about capitalism - I take it as directing our thoughts towards the deep influence the economics exerts on the socio-political realities. In that respect it is a point worth noting, worth pursuing ...
... have to rush ...
thanks all ...more later

Re: # 4 akcheema,
I fully endorse the idea that there should be complete freedom of expression. In particular, I have no problem with humour being used against religion. That is the ultimate test of any faith's grandeur. When people have learned the proper civilized response to anything - (coming to think of it - this is Ghandian approach to religion bashing I am thinking of) then they have become mature in faith or civility. Humanity will reach to that level one day, if we can survive the present destructive course brought upon ourselves.

What I don't agree in your comments is the approach that all our problems stems from religion. This is an over sweeping, generalized approach which is contributing towards creating the fog which hides the real issues.

Beside, I don't understand your last comment. If you have such an aversion about things published at Chowk what you is the point of engaging in the discussion. Is that like those tablighis who consider it their duty to make themselves heard?

Re: # 74 hamidm2,
I don't think the movie bashed Islam more than Christianity. I am not saying that. In my article I have mentioned that it is only last one quarter which relates to Muslims. What I am saying is that painting the possible apocalypse because of Islamic fundamentalism is misleading. Roots of present violence in the world cannot be solely blamed on current resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism only.

I got actually much more worth of my buck. I did enjoy the genuine ridicule – whether Muslim or not - and I have said so in the article. However, also I could clearly see the flaws in the atheistic religious bashing. Not that I want to do any atheistic bashing, but because it warns me of the dangers of one-sided approach. I believe atheistic approach is an important element of our growth. But grow we must - from this teenage arrested phase of development.

The biggest flaw in the arguments on these interacts is that assertions are made which are not implied in my article. This is atheistic paranoia finding its easy preys.

When emotions are stirred quickly, logic gives way to Logiculous.

That is what I mean when I say, atheism is turning into its anti-thesis.

quqinn mian,

"For example, he does not give as much time to Christian fundamentalism of Bush as to Islamic fundamentalism which, as every one knows was fed and pampered by no one other than Imperialist forces and their medieval counterparts and their money "

.... so now i get it! .... your real beef is with him bashing islam more than christianity .... do you remember how much time was devoted to islam vs. other religions? ..... was it one sixth of the film since mohammedans constitute one sixth of humanity ? ..... would you have complained about discrimination if he had not paid any attention to islam and ........ you moslems are pathetic and paranoid ! ....

......it was a good film and i got my nine bucks worth - the real scam was the twenty bucks spent on popcorn and soda ...

#3: tahmed32:
I hope you are not implying that my article in anyway construes that movie is an “anti-muslim propaganda�.

I have described many of the instances where he has ridiculed other religions too. However, he does have a more militant approach towards ‘muslim instances’. For example, he does not give as much time to Christian fundamentalism of Bush as to Islamic fundamentalism which, as every one knows was fed and pampered by no one other than Imperialist forces and their medieval counterparts and their money (How all the madrass came into existence).

I would appreciate if you watch the movie and see if my commentary makes sense.

More later:

#2. pinku: please substantiate your claim;
“seems like an apology on behalf of all religion�

My article is a critique of the movie. It is not critique of atheism per se, neither there is any attempt to justify any religion. I do have my certain convictions about religion; but what I am saying in this article is not expressive of those – it is a critique of the movie and nothing else.

Reading more into what is said, a trait often exhibited by atheists always reminds me of religio-zealots. Both appears to be suffering of paranoi of some sort.

Yes, you can ridicule anything as you may fancy. However, that does not defile the reality. I remember once watching a classical Indian raga by a renown Ustad. A teenage son of my friend, who also happen to be in the room, burst out laughing. The uplifting ‘taans’ of the raga sounded so hilarious to him. Perception about religion are no different. But that aside, my criticism is about the narrowness of producer’s approach + the misleading tactics to camouflage the real issues behind the present socio-political mess.

Again, no one is defending anything – there is no need for such defending in my view – because generations come and go – this transient stage will be gone in an instant – I don’t worry about if someone is bashing religion or not. Neither have I talked in general terms. I am specifically reviewing the movie and assessing it for what it is.

I would appreciate if you would be specific and show that where in my article you see what you claim.

I agree humour is one the most powerful device to expose the flaws and weakness of any attitude including that of religion – any religion – I am not a zeolot either of religulous kind or atheistulous type. In my article I have commended Maher for exposing those fringe element of religion which truly are worth ridiculing. My point being that he selected only the fringe elements for his benefit. And more than that, even they were tricked into – as per report I cited from Los Angles Time. This is artistic dishonesty and reflects on producers’ integrity.

I apologize for late participation in the discussion. There are only some ineracts that directly relate to the topic of the article. I will focus only on those.

#1. Sattar2, Agreed, Maher is humorous and perceptive, but his perceptivity is shallow, seeing only partial truth; and his humour is warped by his sense of ‘holier than thou’.

One of the points discussed in my article is how atheism is becoming its own anti-thesis in hands of some atheists – like Maher. Narrowness of their approach is not very different than the narrowness of religious fundamentalist approach. Both lack comprehensiveness in their approach, both are exclusionist and each cannot tolerate the other.

Carlin lives!

religion explained

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

hamidm2...
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Light-drinking-during-pregna ncy-leads-to-wellbehaved-babies/379817

quite contrary to the advice of arabic moon god...

Re: # 65 Lol!

Re: # 51
hamidm2...
ultimate capitalist...
tax rate in israel and scandinavian countries are very high compared to usa...

Islam does NOT forbid or discourage one to think or ask about after-life, in fact, it explains it very well!

A certain interacter has expressed useless doubts and gone off on a tangent about religion and after-life.

Regards.

Seeing that most of the people on chowk are highly Literate; highly qualified

Here is something, I would request, all of us do:


(a) Those who are religious: for 4 weeks suspend all belief, and follow the die (options should not be based on your or some other or any religion)(as in Luke Rhinehart) or just follow life without religious rules/strictures/etc

(b) Those who are not religious: Do as (a) but options based on a religious belief.


(okay forget the die - just follow a theist or an atheiist life)

During these four weeks - tabulate/dairy your experience

How much difference has this change made to your life?


Personally - I would be surprised if there really is any change in yor life. Religion does not make any difference to your life. god doesnot make any difference to your life. god is always living in la-la land.

But I would love to hear from you guys after the 4 weeks.


reference:

(a)http://www.lukerhinehart.net/
(b)http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Luke_Rhinehart
(c)Book of die ISBN 1-58567-237-8 - April 2002

Religion principally stops us from asking questions about other life!!

Re: # 60

"So basically we believe in religon becuase it gives us made up answers to questions science cannot honestly answer!"

Daniyal , it is more than that. Religions threaten us to accept these answers. We "accept" thee answers because we are silenced through its threats. We are forced into silence by the terror of the after world torture chambers if we do not accept these answers.

Religion principally stops us from asking questions about other life!!

This is the real truth- we are too terrorized to question those ready-made gobble dock stories that are given to us as answers.

It's all about questioning what is already established and has gone without questioning for most of it's existence. People used to stoned, evicted, imprisoned for talking religulous, they still do but the civilized world has put those days behind. The idea behind documentaries like religulous is as old as religion itself. It would seem even more ridiculous to make any more fun of the already ridiculed religious fundamentals. I will leave it to the curious.

Most slightly religious people hang on to the tales on the bases of what they call morality. Here is Einstein take on the issue:
"A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Thumbs up to Bill, real time!

PS. Quin, Bill Maher is the host of HBO's 'Real Time with Bill Maher' and it has recently been showing on Comedy Central as well.

Here is another one I like, "If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia."

Re#11 @ Bulleya said:

//the western world is moving away from religion (other than usa).....religion is out of public life in europe.....hardly anyone goes to church......a poll in uk found that some % (30%) thought beckham had more influence on their lives than God//

But isn't that a brilliant thing? At least Beckham is real. Not a figment of someones imagination.



//at least not until athiesm can provide a complete counter to religion and answer some of its most difficult question, i.e. what happens after death......what is the meaning of life and why were we created......science, at the moment, cannot answer that, and due to certain scientific laws, it will probably never be able to answer these questions......it is, even, finding it impossible to answer how we were created (in detail at the cellular levels), much less why.......//

So basically we believe in religon becuase it gives us made up answers to questions science cannot honestly answer!

My man, you have gone back to the genesis of religion. Can't understand what the Sun is? Make it a God; job done.

To use ignorance as a reason for religion is farcicial but unfortunatley quite true.

Re: # 11

"i.e. what happens after death......what is the meaning of life and why were we created......"

If Islam can answer these questions with its gobbledock (to use Cheemaji's favourite term) and convince muslims then I would seriously question the common sense of that population!!

Hamid mian,

joe the plumber pays his bills - utilities, labor, parts and tips for the strippers at his brother-in-law's bachelor party ..... what hasn't he paid for ? ...

Well, he hasn't paid for the "daisy cutters" which keeps his land safe to begin with (as per your own admission). He hasn't paid for the police which keeps him from being mugged (like our friend Zeenaji was on several ocassions). He hasn't paid for the bailouts that are keeping your 401 K plans solid. Maybe a few I wud have missed.

Regards

hamidm: "why should joe pay 'income tax' ."

same reason he pays the gas station from his income.

". why should mccain pay more?"

because mccain's seven houses create seven times more external costs. and even if they didnt, because sane people agree (that leaves out Leona Helmsley and other hard-core republicans) that the rich are able to pay more than the poor.

#53 Marx-adi: Google "Marxist theory of development" and you will get 622,000 websites referring to it. And this is decades after even "marxist intellectuals" (who were the rage back in the 1960's, along with mini-skirts and tight pants) stopped taking Marxists theories seriously!! So stop pretending that there is no such thing. In fact, the Marxist theory of economic development used to be part of Marxism 101 when Marxism was taken seriously decades ago.

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

hamid writes "but this income tax thing sounds like communism to me"

It is not communism you idiot, it involves the elite sharing the loot, first some get the surplus then they pay part of that surplus of the poor working class man in income tax, which the government recycles to other elite in payment for the debt it has taken out on behalf of the people, or uses it to feed the defense corporations by giving them useless contracts, and so this cycle of looting the public continues. Tahmed has no clue. His "external cost" BS explanation for income tax is just as absurd as his "Marxist" theory of development. McCain wants to supplement Obama's Muslim connection with a communist tone (two well developed enemies with stereotypes) so he and his dishonest campaign people are trying to link New Deal manipulations as if they were communism in the pure. No, they were watered down BS that were employed to salvage this miserable system from collapse...

Tahmed wrote "The only reason you havent heard of it is because your vast circle of knowledge does not encompass basic knowledge economic development!!"

Please learn to write proper English. I did not red flag your post, someone else did. According to Marxist "theory" the collapse of the capitalist system is inevitable so there is no " theory of development" as such that development economics would study. All those are contrived based on a basic misunderstanding of the Marxian dialectic. Get an education, as you can see all your development economics has done horse sh** to get the colonized countries to develop, it is obfuscation of the real issues, issues involving manipulations by the capitalists to prevent their inevitable demise, that is the only "development" that is their fate.

Have a nice day and don't try to compare your BS about Marxism to my genuine knowledge regarding it.

TNI Masadi

tahmed writes "Mr. Masadi: I look forward to an illuminating discussion with you on Marxism"

Ahmad sahib your statement "Marxist theory of development" told me that you know sh** about it. I don't have to read up on it I have peered inside the mind of Marx and I know how it thinks, you on the other hand base your BS on Fox News propaganda regarding Marxism, according to whom Obama is a Marxist who wrote your "Marxist theory of development".

Go figure....

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

Re: # 49

tahmed,

.... oh, you mean streets and bridges and killing terrorists and other stuff like that? ...... sure, joe should pay for that and so should mccain but they should pay the same amount ...... why should mccain pay more? ..... because he drives a big expensive suv? .... but he has already paid a larger 'consumption' tax on it and that, like i said is fair ..... why should joe pay 'income tax' ...... property tax is okay even though my schooltax is subsidizing bubba's children's education - i don't mind that because i don't want to penalize his kids for his sins ..... i might even throw in a few dollars for their health insurance, but this income tax thing sounds like communism to me .......

PS to #49: They chapters on External Costs in the Republican Bible were eaten by Urstruly's goat. That is why Joe the Plumber isnt aware of them.

hamidm: This is an example of what is meant by External Costs: Getting Joe the Plumber to his office (e.g. McCains clogged toilet that Joe the Plumber is going to fix for $250k) requires Internal Costs (i.e. gas for the car, which Plumber pays the gas station), and External Costs (i.e. the street, which Plumber pays the government as Income Tax). OK?

Here is your homework assignment: Name ten other types of costs that are needed to get Joe the Plumber and the broken toilet together.

Re: # 45

urstruly,

welcome back! .... how is life in a cave on the pak-afghan border ..... in case you decide to come back to civilization my offer still stands even though i am a little short of change because of the collapse of the western capitalist system ..... i hold you moslems personally responsible for this - you guys have been praying five times a day for the destruction of the united states ...... damn! you guys and your moon god are good !

With apology to the writer of this article:

I am looking for SR; I haven't seen him around since the economy of the whole country has been fukked up by soodkhors. I value his opinion. Where is he???

oh i just realized that its a movie not a book -see what i mean.

I saw Maher on JOhn Stewarts' The Daily show, touting his book. He sounded below average in intellect; regurgitating the evasive outbursts that atheists usually make and are only capable of; kind of like our hamidm here. I am not going to spend my dime to read his innanities - no thanks.

Re: # 40

tahmed,

... call me dense but what the heck are you talking about ..."the money they (or anyone) makes involves external costs of production" ...... what external costs of production ?? .... joe the plumber pays his bills - utilities, labor, parts and tips for the strippers at his brother-in-law's bachelor party ..... what hasn't he paid for ? ... why should he pay for masadi's cheese

Mr. Masadi: I look forward to an illuminating discussion with you on Marxism...but...after you have read up on it, per what I wrote at the end of #32.

tahmed writes "Because, O Hamidm the Plumber, the money they (or anyone) makes involves external costs of production...(sigh) "

That is not it o janitor of the West, it is because the money they make is traced to the surplus that those without the money have contributed to, and the privilege and power that big money has been able to muster to consolidate their privilege.

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi.

Hamid writes ".. tahmed mian did not say " marx's theory" .. he said "marxist" ..... think about it - it is the same theory that is being pushed by obama and his communist economic advisors ........."

It cannot be the same theory "of development" because that does not figure out in Marx's cosmology...

Have a nice day and take it easy

TNI Masadi

hamidm #37 " why should people be taxed on the money they make ? "

Because, O Hamidm the Plumber, the money they (or anyone) makes involves external costs of production...(sigh)

Khurram writes "Again, who determines what is beyond the need"

If your a$$ is getting fatter because you are eating beyond your need, you should quit eating...In a classless society it would be very easy to determine basic needs, everyone will get a free Harvard education...

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

Khurram writes "This is the same fallacious argument that there is no democracy in Islam becuase sovereignty belongs to God."

Actually I believe that there is democracy in Islam, which is a completely different discussion to "ownership". Instead of dealing what I wrote 100% from the Quran you try to deflect the argument into absurd directions. There is democracy in Islam because God has put his sovereignty on hold where it concerns humanity by giving them 'free will'and the basic tools (and they are very basic) based on which they can align themselves with the material conditions of the wider universe in which God is sovereign. Otherwise there would be no purpose behind the creation of a conscious being like man. Of course the state will initiate the redistribution function but once the people develop that consciousness of not being owners but trustees the state will not have to play any role. Petty bourgeoisie Pakistanis like your good self worry about the state taking your money as Zakat that is why the bugs in your a$$ start acting out....

Have a nice day and if you have to rebut my arguments deal with what I write rather than deflect them towards absurd directions.

TNI Masadi

Re: # 31

teddy roosevelt might be a darling of the conservatives but he was a communist ! ... people should not be penalized for making more money .... i am against any kind of income tax - why should people be taxed on the money they make ? ..... they should be taxed on consumption - that sounds fair to me ....... it is the old 'you want to dance, you have to pay the fiddler' principle ......

Re: masadi #18,
"everything beyond the needs is to be spent as redistribution"

Again, who determines what is beyond the need and who distributes it? Is it the individual, acting through private charity? Or is the State that makes the decision for him? That makes all the difference.

masadai #18,
"There is btw no private ownership in Islam, ownership belongs to God and humans are mere trustees.."
This is the same fallacious argument that there is no democracy in Islam becuase sovereignty belongs to God.

The real question is who are the trustees (or agents) of God? If you believe it is the individual, then you believe in individual property rights and democracy.

If you believe it is the community as a whole, or the State acting on behalf of the community, then you are a socialist or communist.

If you believe it is some class of people (e.g. clergy) or some special individual (king, khalifa, imam etc.) then you are a theocrat or a monarchist etc.

Just saying that ownership (or sovereignty) belongs to God is nether here nor there.

hamidm: you will be pleased to know that this financial crisis has indirectly helped spread some of your wealth around to the rest of us. Hope that makes you feel better. :-)

HP #29 I learnt more about Marxism than I needed to in the 1960's when economists actually took that clown seriously.

Mr. Masadi: Actually there is a Marxist theory of economic development. Previous generations of Marx-adi's used to swear by it, and confidently predicted the end of capitalism, death to the US, and other nasty things based on that theory. The only reason you havent heard of it is because your vast circle of knowledge does not encompass basic knowledge economic development!! Go educate yourself then come talk to me, you ignorant scallawag!! (Chowk staff: The last word is written in jest. Please dont ban me when Masadi puts a red flag on it.)

#30
hamidm2: wouldn't anyone who supported progressive taxes be a socialist? Actually, anyone who just supported a fixed rate tax rather than a fixed amount would support some kind of redistribution, right?

Re: # 29

hp,

okay, so he is not a communist ... but anyone who wants to take money from joe the plumber and spread it around is definitely a socialist .... right now i might not have a lot of money left but i would still like to keep what little i have .....

.... on the other hand, obama is definitely a much more attractive candidate than that spokesperson for aarp and the euthanasia society ..... i used to like mccain, but i think he is too old and almost as senile as tahmed - let's hope he doesn't keel over and leave us with palin and the first dude running this popsickle stand ........ if that happens i am moving to canada ........

Tahmed here is a link to every thing you want to learn about Marxism.
http://marxists.org/

Since Hamidm has too much time on hand, I would recommend he should go through this site and find out if Obama’s name appear some where along with Marx.

I think this is the US communist Party Site http://www.sp-usa.org/ they have their own candidates and no one is named Obama! So McCain is a liar and Hamid is a fellow traveler of a liar.

Re: # 25

mad masadi,

.... tahmed mian did not say " marx's theory" .. he said "marxist" ..... think about it - it is the same theory that is being pushed by obama and his communist economic advisors .........

tahmed,

�… but why would God pick a capitalist to do the job …�

One may also ask … why would god pick a man … or why would god pick an arab …

If you are arguing superiority of capitalism, you may as well argue superiority of men and/or arabs. Not that masadi’s viewpoint is right or wrong … but your snappy rebuttal is devoid of much thought.

BTW, believing in things outside the box is one thing … but giving up pork chops is quite another. How you stretch a point to an ill-connected conclusion, is stupefying.

And finally: The Hedron Collider will solve NOTHING. Human dilemma has to do with plain old greed and selfishness. Adding 6th or 9th dimension to theoretical physics has no relevance to larger human issues. So stop deluding yourself …

tahmed writes "Marxist theory of economic development"

Ahmad sahib there is no such thing as "Marx's theory of economic development"- Get an education

tahmed writes "And dont start teaching me the "Marxist theory of economic development""

I can't teach you anything because of the lack of your brain capacity and the minimum level of morality required to learn. You might have read the "equations" but you certainly don't understand any of it. I challenge you to point to me one historian worth the name, one economist or one social scientists who attests to your BS that there was "capitalism" in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century.

Have a nice day and get a brain,

TNI Masadi

Re: # 20

masadi mian,

..... who let you out ??... anyway, before they put you back in your padded sell, are you going to fight me for tahmed's soul ?? ......... i don't think he has one ....

Mr. Marx-adi: Whaddya mean there was no capitalism at the time of the prophet!! You mean the prophet was Santa Claus who delivered goods to little children around the arabian peninsula and syria if they had been good? And dont start teaching me the "Marxist theory of economic development" because I read that (in the form of math equations, no less) when you were still messing your diapers!!

hamidm: " it might cure you "

cure me of what? the view that there are things than the box I live in? in that case, i think there are far worse sufferers of this disease than i am - including the dummies who invested billions of dollars in building the Large Hadron Collider (man's window outside the box), including the duds with PhDs in physics who are investigating things like multiple universes, black holes, the Big Bang, the Big Bounce and so forth.

After all - everyone cant be a genius like you, doc, and understand that there is no life outside your own little Babu-Box.

Tahmed writes "but why would God pick a capitalist to do the job..."

The prophet was no capitalist, capitalism didn't exist at the time, and God doesn't look for "qualifications" socially prescribed, while handing out "jobs"- that is your petty bourgeoisie mentality speaking, those who rejected him asked similar questions as justification for denial, reproduced in the Quran. You are closer to those hypocrites than you think.

Ok, here's a Maher clip ... 4 minutes of on-the-mark, brilliant humor ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcJohfS4vTQ&NR=1

There is btw no private ownership in Islam, ownership belongs to God and humans are mere trustees and in that trust entrusted to them, everything beyond the needs is to be spent as redistribution- this is clearly stated and is a principle Marx got to only much later....

Have a nice day and don't use hadith to justify your BS while denying it on other occasions.

tahmed writes "Mr. Masadi: The prophet himself married a capitalist and became one himself. And engaged not just in capitalism, but in unchecked capitalism!! That is, with no federal regulatory agency keeping an eye on the environmental impact of camels in the trade caravans polluting the desert !"

You must be a total ignoramus of the highest caliber. There was no capitalism before the bourgeoisie revolution, which occurred first and foremost in England in the 17th century. The prophet was no capitalist but you BS reminds me of the use of religious justification for slavery and racism that your white masters have used and that you are using to promote an unjust barbaric system.

Re: # 15

tahmed mian,

9/11 was a piece of garbage - this one is great ..... much better than borat and animal house and, like i said before, it might cure you .....

Hamidm #9 I wanted to see it, but after being tricked into seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 and then "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World", the missus refuses to see yet another political-type movie. And I hate going alone to movies.
:-(

Mr. Masadi: The prophet himself married a capitalist and became one himself. And engaged not just in capitalism, but in unchecked capitalism!! That is, with no federal regulatory agency keeping an eye on the environmental impact of camels in the trade caravans polluting the desert !

Not that that means anything, but why would God pick a capitalist to do the job if he thought one of Hamidm's Dipty Sektry friends in Block L at the Islamabad Secretariat with whom he luxuriates in chai-and-samosa could do the job better?

//However, in the last quarter when Religulous focuses on Islam...//

How dare he! How dare he! Wait'll I find my MS Word fatwa template...

correction: " poll in uk found that some % (30%) thought beckham had more influence on their lives than God.......

should read,

poll in uk, that i saw on dateline london, found that some % (30%?) thought beckham had more influence on their lives than God.......

...bill maher is an interesting guy....i have been watching him for a long time.......quite funny.....

...he seems to have achieved a profitable market for his comedy, now.....his initial start was to be a liberatarian....then he went on against bush.....this got him fired from his original show, when he made a comment about terrorists.....

.....at that time, he believed in God, but not in any religion......he used to state this, again and again....now, he seems to have become a total athiest.....

.....the athiest crowd is, totally, unrepresented in the usa......according to maher, it is 16-17% of the usa population......

the most successful entertainers (and political commentators) are the ones that can develop a cult following.....athiesm is a good area to tap into....since there are already too many anti-bush and liberalatrians out there......

should do good business for maher......another person who is doing good business in this area is christopher hitchens....

i would place all these people in the bill o'reilly, rush limbaugh etc. category......it is unfortunate to see someone more intellectually inclined that the above two - maher - also follow this route......i always felt maher was more like a tariq ali....i.e. someone who is an athiest, but doesn't try to make his money through that.....instead he concentrates on his intellectually political ideas......

athiests haven't been able to establish themselves throughout history.....primarily because, while, they highlight all the shortcomings in religon, however, they are unable to provide any alternative......because there are so many questions for which they don't have an answer, either.....the generic answer of, "science will eventually figure it out" falls short in many areas......

.....the western world is moving away from religion (other than usa).....religion is out of public life in europe.....hardly anyone goes to church......a poll in uk found that some % (30%) thought beckham had more influence on their lives than God.......

however, i don't think people will move away from God in the west........they will move away from the religious burecracy, and just believe in a Creator called God.....but not become fully athiest.......

..........at least not until athiesm can provide a complete counter to religion and answer some of its most difficult question, i.e. what happens after death......what is the meaning of life and why were we created......science, at the moment, cannot answer that, and due to certain scientific laws, it will probably never be able to answer these questions......it is, even, finding it impossible to answer how we were created (in detail at the cellular levels), much less why.......

anyways, maher has hit on a goldmine and if he can milk it, he should make good bucks.......much like o'reilly, limbaugh, rushdie, harsi, manji etc.......

p.s. i keep telling my wife that she needs to write a book on how she is fed up with islam and that her husband (me) beats her all the time......if she can geta fatwa or two against it, it will be a definite best-seller......after which we can retire and move to the french riveira.....

tahmed writes "Mr. Masadi: If there was no capitalism, who would make your computer? Hazrat Jibraeel?? Karl Marx? or Stalin??"

What a cheap comeback. Is that all you've got? Is private property necessary for computers to be built? I think not. Computers are the logical result of functional specialization and rationalization, which does not have to occur under capitalism alone. Infact the rationalization of non-capitalist systems is what the capitalists rail against when they talk of the SU.

It is a tendency of capitalism to claim everything "sacred" for itself and then deflect the profane towards its enemies. Capitalism has nothing to do with inventions. It has everything to do with converting everything into a profit making venture. Only morons like Hamid will learn "religion" from Maher.The guy is a first rate ignoramus whose views on Republicans btw are totally opposed to the hamidm slave of the white man.

Have a nice day and take it easy,
TNI Masadi

Re: # 3

tahmed,

... you should go and see the movie - it might cure you of your silly superstitions and irrational fears ...... if that doesn't then you need to listen to carlin's case against god five times a day ........

.... joe bless you !

Mr. Masadi: If there was no capitalism, who would make your computer? Hazrat Jibraeel?? Karl Marx? or Stalin??

#6 Posted by masadi on
masadi, capitalism is not stupid, it is greedy..., it is evil in many ways, but it is never plain stupid and good for almost nothing as religions are. They don't want to do what you said.... basic aim of capitalism top level greedy people, called investors, is to enjoy comforts without doing much. All this recession or even a recession 100 times worse than what it is now, just doesn't affect those greedy people much... They are not looting money, money keeps on flowing, they loot the efforts of poor people.

Now that is done at each level. A desi middle-class person employs a maid, pays Rs 500 or 1000 per month and loots lot of hardwork from her. Then this middle class employee is fooled by his manager to work more and more with not much salary and so on.

The idea is simple, the fruits of efforts are enjoyed by those who are more close to top than bottom. But again, this is their intention, it is not necessary that the results are like this. A simple minded engineer can have lot of fun in his life by doing just good enough work and not seeking the ladder of "status"/management. Only the poors or ultra poors like maids or laborers (or people who do not get even laborer's work) get affected most.

Religion are plain stupid, or grossly stupid, not just greedy. They are greedy of power plus their major product is idiocy.

The greed of capitalism or society will not go away soon and in a sense it is part of evolution. It will go away, there are more sophisticated ideas that will replace this common greed eventually. But it will take time.

The step in getting rid of this greed is to get rid of stupidities propagated and suported by religions. Unite people on truths and not on stupidities. Create unity of thoughts that is close to truths.

Specifically...
[[
On the one hand they want to pay the workers less and less and on the other hand they want to increase markets by selling more and more, and they keep on at it not understanding this contradiction as if nothing was wrong, sooner or later their chickens come home to roost...
]]

Those greedy people do not lose anything. 90% of millionares remain millionares after any type of recession, 10 percent get affected at the most(actually not even 10 percent). All they do is they re-circulate money to start looting "efforts" from lower level people again. The business is in getting "efforts" at low cost and nothing else.

Pinku writes "but religions have so much stupidity that you can have fun for days/weeks/years."

I don't think any religion can have as much "stupidity" as the house of cards capitalism has built and the idiot-ology that goes with that. On the one hand they want to pay the workers less and less and on the other hand they want to increase markets by selling more and more, and they keep on at it not understanding this contradiction as if nothing was wrong, sooner or later their chickens come home to roost...

Maher is a certified ignoramus and an illiterate a-hole. Little wonder tahmed finds him fascinating...

Have a nice day and take it easy,

TNI Masadi

Religion is an idea that has had the "free ride" under the 'pretence' of "respect" since time immemorial ... it governs every aspect of the life of the one afflicted yet we are not allowed to speak up against its very foundation ... in case we hurt some one's pathetic little insecurities!! ... and it doesn't just control the person but societies as a whole ... and that has a spill over affect on other similar 'societies' ... leads to inertia of one's independent thinking faculties and promotes a 'distinction' between groups.

btw ... I didn't read the article, nor do I intend to ... most articles here are mindless, think-out-loud drivel anyway!

Bill Maher is very funny and brutally honest. I am not surprised, even without watching the movie, that many muslims would find him annoying. Muslims would do themselves and Islam a favor by taking seriously Maher's references to 9/11 and other current issues related to the muslim societies, rather than letting it slide as "anti-muslim propaganda".

Seems like an apology on behalf of all religions. I don't know what this movie says about religions in ‎1 hour and 41 min‎utes, but religions have so much stupidity that you can have fun for days/weeks/years.

Defending your own religion is acceptable to some extent because your own ego is being hurt, but defending religions in general as if they are "poor" creatures "being beaten by everybody" is absurd. These are powerful, idiotic creatures with lot of muscle-power, money, propaganda, lies and who say too many amazingly idiotic things on behalf of God and force them on people who do not even have time to think about God.
Making fun of them is least you can do to make them realize what the are. More such movies with more fun and sarcasm should be made on regular basis. That is the only way to make peolpe come out of the clutches of religion and seek proper meaning of God/Universe on their own.

Neither science nor Athiesm converts people forcibly. They don't stamp you with the stamp of "athiest" or "scientist". Nor do the fight for it. You don't even want to give them freedom to speak against evil creatures like religions; that is riliguous???

... haven't seen the movie ... but must say that Bill Maher rocks. He is exceedingly humorous and perceptive (and I say this as a Muslim!).